Your answer leaves the field wide open for any all responses, no
delimitation of the issues at hand. I'm unsure I have time to begin such
a process. Paul
*************************************************************************
Vol.21-Neoliberalism in Crisis, Accumulation, and Rosa Luxemburg's Legacy
RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, Zarembka/Soederberg, eds, Elsevier Science
********************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Gerald A. Levy wrote:
> Hi Paul Z.
>
> [Jerry asked]
> > First, an abstract, hypothetical question:
> > Suppose the wages of productive workers has gone up by 10%
> > and there is an increase in v of 10%. In this case,
> > the increase in v would not necessarily cause a increase in
> > the quantity of exploited workers. Supposing also that c
> > goes up -- and thus c & v simultaneously rise -- would this
> > by your understanding represent an increase in the
> > accumulation of capital?
> [Paul Z replied]
> > You want to hold c/v, the organic composition of capital, fixed.
>
> I'm trying to clarify the conditions under which there can be an
> accumulation and de-accumulation of capital according to your
> definition. _I_ don't want the OCC to be fixed (and I don't think that's
> what happens ordinarily when there is an increase in the accumulation
> of capital).
>
> > But v
> > increasing confused a distribution question (s/v changing) with a
> > technological. Can I answer you using c/(v+s), which avoid the
> > distributional qustion?
>
> I want clarification and dialogue so, sure, I don't mind if you
> _begin_ by answering the question you would have preferred
> that I ask provided you then attempt to answer the question that
> I did ask, OK?
>
> (btw, I don't think that changes in s/v should be only seen as
> a distribution question. Nor do I think that changes in the
> accumulation of capital are necessarily or only indications of
> technological changes.)
>
> In solidarity, Jerry
>
>
>